Looking For A Dialogue Around Using An Ortofon MC2000 In My Current System

It always boils down to "distortions" that the other guy "likes".

You don't seem to recognize that the Manley Steelhead drives the Beveridge speaker system and woofers that I have in a system totally separate from the Sound Lab system.  The Beveridge amplifiers are single-ended, so I chose an SE preamplifier (the Steelhead) to drive the inputs.  The 3160 and my MP1 drive the Sound Lab system, which is fully balanced from cartridges (three turntables) to amplifier outputs.  (For those who don't know, those two preamps are fully balanced.) Each system, and every other single system, has its own gain characteristics that are determined primarily by the phono and linestage gain, the input sensitivity of the amplifier, and the efficiency of the speakers.  The MC2000 has been in the Beveridge system for the last few years.  When I did have it driving the 3160 in the Sound Lab system, it was my perception that the SQ was a bit "anemic" (my choice of word).  Which is to say that if I turned up the gain to the point where associated noise became audible, which I don't like to tolerate, the SQ, while clean and quiet up to that point, was not as "full" as I thought it ought to be.  These are totally subjective terms, and one would have to be in the same room with me to verify or deny the truth of those opinions. I was even contemplating selling the MC2000, in my frustration.

Based on the printed material that was supplied to me with the 3160, the MC section can provide 60db of gain.  You were not able to tell me, a few years ago, how much gain is added by the linestage, but I am guessing it must be at least 15-20db, because the 3160 works like a champ with my Audio Technica ART7, which makes 0.12mV (about twice the output of the MC2000) at the standard velocity.  At about 75db of total phonolinepreamp gain, the ART7 would supply around 0.7V to the amplifier inputs, at full output. I can blow myself out of the room, with the 3160 attenuators at about 1 o'clock.  Hence, my estimate of linestage gain in the 3160. As you may also recall, my particular 3160 has two separate MC sections; it does not have an MM section, like the standard version.  When I asked you whether you could convert one MC section to MM, I was told it cannot be done. Thus I do not have the option of running the MC2000 into a SUT or pre-preamp and then into the 3160 MM stage. The MC2000 makes only .05mV output at standard stylus velocity.  I estimate you need a minimum of 80db total gain, or more would be better, to be sure of driving most amplifiers properly.  80db of total gain would give a preamplifier output of ~0.5V.  As you know, most amplifiers are OK with anywhere from 0.5V to 2V for full output.  Given the characteristics of the 3160, I was not surprised that I felt a sense of lean-ness to the sound from the MC2000, at attenuator levels where noise did not intrude.  My particular Sound Labs are probably more efficient than any others that do not bear the modifications performed on mine, which involved removal of passive crossover components that suck and waste amplifier power.  So, I am loathe to blame either my amplifiers, which are coasting with the Sound Labs, or the SLs themselves, but if I have a "problem" it is a very slight lack of total phonolinepreamp gain when using the MC2000 into the 3160.  Your "problem" is your extreme sensitivity to even the hint of criticism of the the 3160.  I have written here more than once that I think it is a terrific unit, easily the best SS preamplifier that I have ever heard and one of the best of any kind that I have ever heard.  To say that it is just a bit short of gain for the MC2000 is hardly an insult. I am very happy with the 3160.

Should I conclude every post from now on with the statement, "I hate distortion as much as you"?

Raul, you are wrong in your comments about my system. Ridiculously presumptuous in fact.

Edgeware, I agree with your and Raul’s laissez faire attitude toward tonearm matching, but your logic above is faulty. If one wants to conform to the resonant frequency calculation then one must use a very lightweight tonearm, owing to the relatively high mass of the cartridge body and its high compliance. The high mass of the cartridge is a potential detriment to using even a medium to high mass tonearm. Don’t you think? Where have I gone wrong here?

Neon, If you are using a SUT into an "MC" phono stage, be very sure that the phono input resistor is 47K ohms, not the more typical 100 ohm range, albeit because the internal resistance of the MC2000 is only 2 ohms, you probably can get away easily with values lower than 47K ohms. The rule of thumb is that the internal R of the cartridge should be about 1/10 of the phono input resistor value, ideally. So for a 2-ohm cartridge, you could actually get away with a net 20-ohm input impedance. Keep in mind that the input impedance seen by the cartridge will be the value of the phono input resistor divided by the square of the turns ratio of the SUT. If the turns ratio needed is 1:30, that would give you a net input impedance of ~52 ohms with a 47K resistor, so you don’t want to go much below 47K.

Yes but all the options are out on the table for you. You can’t find a T2000 but you can obtain a suitable substitute that may even be superior to a T2000. You can source either a SUT or an active gain stage from Intact Audio. Apparently a SUT is available off the shelf from Jensen. There are also some very high gain current driven phono stages available. Each option requires $$$.

Just listen.

Dave knows more about it than I. It’s solid state with an external power supply. I just plugged it in between the MC2000 and my Manley Steelhead MM inputs with gain set at either 50 or 55 db. There was an attempt at current drive but the input Z, while low, is not quite low enough for true current drive owing to the very low internal resistance of the MC2000. Nevertheless plenty of gain. Since dave designed and built it, I assume there may be a transformer in their somewhere.

Neon, Several points.  (1) Jensen are pros.  They understand transformers and how to build them.  If you have any misgivings about shielding, ask them.  I doubt you would have a problem.  Same goes for Dave Slagle (Intact Audio). (2) The REASON that Gordon Holt suggested using a tonearm with 5g effective mass, if that were possible, with the MC2000 is BECAUSE of its 11g weight.  In other words, if you add 5g to 11g, for an effective mass of 16g, the calculated resonant frequency probably falls into a range Holt found to be acceptable. (I haven't done a calculation, but I assume Mr Holt knew what he was talking about.)  The very light tonearm is advisable because the cartridge has both high compliance and high mass in and of itself.  But I don't think even GH used such a light tonearm when he auditioned the MC2000 and subsequently declared it to be the best sounding cartridge he had ever heard up to that point. (3) I would have to disagree with you on the idea that there are no active gain devices that are quiet enough to work with the MC2000, in conjunction with an MM phono stage.  I am in fact using one that Intact Audio built for me; it's dead silent.  I have two other high gain phono stages that are certainly quiet enough, but they don't have quite enough gain to make me happy.  The MC2000 sounds a bit anemic with those two.  I do not own a SUT; nor have I ever owned one.

I have already suggested that you contact Intact Audio. Another source for a proper transformer would be Jensen in California. They may be able to custom build you a SUT with a high enough turns ratio to accommodate your MC2000. (Or maybe they even make one already; check their website.) As I mentioned to you, I am using mine in a Dynavector DV505, with a lightweight CF headshell. Results are satisfactory, but I don’t know if they are optimal as I have not tried other lightweight tonearms. Gordon Holt in his original review back when pointed out that the weight of the cartridge itself, combined with its high compliance, meant that you optimally need a 5g tonearm for best resonant frequency. Not too many tonearms fulfill that strict criterion, maybe an Infinity Black Widow or one of the lightweight ADC tonearms. The theoretical problem with the DV505 is that although the vertical effective mass is at least in the right ballpark, with a light headshell, its horizontal effective mass is much higher, somewhat like a typical SL tonearm. Anyway, your MC2000 will certainly "work" in the DV505 for the time being at least.

By the way, the MC2000 is also a good candidate for a current-driven phono stage, which might not cost much more than a custom SUT.  Curent equals voltage divided by resistance.  .05mV/2 ohms = .025mA.  Some other LOMC cartridges commonly used with current drive don't make as much current as the MC2000. You still need lots of gain, though.